#william is LITERALLY that parent who thinks their children are just mini-me's to live through sorry

[spring-lxcked]

thinking abt the whole michael-as-william's-favorite-kid pre-bite thing again and i think i finally pinned it down

i've mentioned it a million times but he generally sees a lot of himself in michael, and not just appearance-wise. michael is his oldest son, mini-me and that makes him both the favorite and the one who can most easily "fail" william.

i don't know how to explain that michael's attitude @ william as he gets older both pisses william off and reinforces the idea that they're the same.

elizabeth is the second favorite for also having stuff in common with william but ( at least by default / with my portrayal ) she favors elise in both appearance and personality just enough that william resents it. no, he's not self-aware enough to realize this. it doesn't necessarily show via affection, but through other means. literally his only redeeming factor as a parent is that he is capable of affection pre-bite ( and, rarely, post-bite )

( william isn't necessarily mentally ranking his kids to be clear LMAO. he's the type to be like "i don't play favorites" and then he lets michael get away with literally anything so long as it doesn't annoy / anger him. also wanna reiterate a la the last post: being his favorite is a bad thing. literally just being his kid is a bad thing, i'm not implying that one of the kids had it "easier" because i dislike that sentiment )

incredibly incredibly incredibly unpopular opinion but evan is the least favorite and i've always known this abt my william but it's such an uncommon headcanon fdhfkasdhalhf. he is, at least overall, nothing like william. his need for comfort is fine until it's not. like, william will coddle him as the youngest but in the end, he won't put in the necessary effort ( sometimes on purpose because he's "so busy," sometimes because he's obtuse ). at some point he wants evan to just "get over it" and he doesn't hide it well.

the bite obviously complicated everything, so that's a whole other story. something something william thinks his son is violent just like him ( positive to him lmao ) VS michael is traumatized VS william would never have bulllied / harmed his own sister VS michael killed his son ETC ETC ETC. normal family dynamic. where's that edit i made oh right

[jennycalendar]

was going through ripper au nonsense and realized that i never posted this, oh my gosh??? largely because it is SUPER plotless and self-indulgent. but. so is the entirety of the ripper au. anyway some stuff that hasn’t (yet) officially made it into the ripper au but is mentioned in this mini fic:

spike and drusilla are like ripper and jenny’s weird couple friends. jenny gave drusilla a soul to help center her and then spike wanted one too because he felt left out. ripper and jenny were friends with them before the soul thing, though.

ripper and jenny have a TERRIFYING number of children, because they both really wanted to make their family as big as possible. the scoobies are around literally all the time tho so it’s not like they’re struggling to keep an eye on the kids. (this one is still a variable bc i’m not sure how it works characterization-wise, but it makes my brain happy and my mom and i talked about it for a really long time on the phone a year ago, so it’s probably gonna stay.)

Spike and Dru came over for tea that Wednesday. The newest little Calendar-Giles, who hadn’t officially met either of them, was utterly fascinated by Dru’s vamp face, and while Dru entertained Ripper’s brood Spike ducked into the kitchen to speak to the man himself. Ripper, who was holding the second-newest Calendar-Giles, looked a little bit worn, and happy about it; it was, Spike supposed, what happened when you had a ridiculous number of kids and a baby on the way.

“Do you and Jenny ever intend on stopping?” he asked

Ripper considered. “No.”

“You should,” said the second-littlest Calendar-Giles. “There’s no more room in the house for a baby and I don’t want to share.”

“Audrey, you’re already sharing,” Ripper pointed out.

“I don’t want to share more!” objected—Audrey, Spike reminded himself. The only one whose name he reliably remembered at this point was Alexandra, and that was mostly because she was an absolute hellion who took after all the scary parts of her parents. “This house is too small! Great-Aunts Vin and Sophie have a big house, why can’t we?”

“Great-Aunts Vin and Sophie are obscenely rich, darling,” said Ripper patiently, shifting Audrey to his hip. “We are—”

“Still pretty rich,” said Spike, “considering you’re supporting—how many kids? Twenty?”

“Seven,” said Ripper. He hesitated. “Not counting the one due in March.”

“Christ, it’s like the Sound of Music,” said Spike.

Jennifer, who was washing dishes, snort-laughed. “Feels like it,” she said. “I’d make a great Liesel.”

“Did you want something, Spike?” said Ripper, giving him a small, amused grin. It looked weird with the glasses, Spike thought.

“Yeah,” said Spike awkwardly, shifting from foot to foot. “Uh. Maybe.”

Ripper sort of rolled his eyes a little, then said, “Jennifer, could you take Audrey out to your mum?”

“I can take me out to mama,” said Audrey loudly, twisting out of Ripper’s arms and half-tumbling to the floor. She hurried out of the room, and Jennifer (who was clearly old enough to take the hint) turned off the sink before following.

“Mate, I think you’re my best friend,” said Spike, blurting it out before he could lose his nerve. “Dru pointed out this morning—we’ve known you and Jenny for what, twenty years?”

“Twenty-something,” Ripper agreed gamely, smiling slightly. “Probably a bit less than that if we discount the years without the souls.”

“Yeah,” said Spike. “Yeah, and—you’re pretty much the only one I want to punch in the throat on a regular basis.”

He would have meant it as an insult, twenty-something years ago, but it came out sounding more like something vaguely friendly. Affectionate, even, which was bizarre in how natural it felt. Ripper was his best friend, Spike realized, in the weirdest fucking possible way.

“God,” said Ripper, grinning. “Why couldn’t we be like Jenny and Dru? Those two will just talk shit about us for hours and no one gets punched in the throat.”

Spike glanced out through the doorway, towards Ripper’s living room. Surrounded by what seemed like a thousand little kids, not counting Buffy and Faith on the sofa plus Willow and Xander in the foyer, Jenny and Dru were having one of their delightedly cheerful catch-up sessions. Their friendship had always been strong even when Dru hadn’t had a soul; Dru’s newfound conscience had made Jenny almost as sweetly determined to care for and protect her as Spike himself was. Which said a lot.

Spike was quite genuinely fond of Jenny, all things considered. But he didn’t think being friends with Ripper would be quite as fun if he and Ripper just sat around talking all the time. Still— “We could talk,” he suggested.

“Nah,” said Ripper, grinning. “Much more fun to kick you in the shins when you’re being an arse.”

“Fuck off,” said Spike, grinning back.

 ~~

As it happened, the baby wanted to be born a little early—late February instead of early March—and Ripper did a ridiculous Panicky Thing at the hospital where he fretted over Jenny and the kids until Jenny (very in labor) shouted at him to leave me alone and let me do this thing, asshole. Spike, who had seen this coming a mile off, led Ripper patiently out into the waiting room, where the no-longer-youngest Calendar-Giles was nestled snugly in Dru’s arms.

“Hold your kid,” said Spike, taking the baby from Dru and handing it unceremoniously to Ripper. Ripper stumbled, arms curling protectively around it, and Spike said, rolling his eyes, “Jen’s old hat at this, mate.”

“The baby’s early,” said Ripper, “and she’s not as young as she was when we had Jennifer—”

“Do not,” said Spike, “ever say that around your wife.”

Ripper huffed, indignation replacing fear. “I’m not a moron—”

“Oh,” said Spike, “is that why you’re having a complete and total meltdown over a pregnancy that’s two weeks early? It’s going to be fine.”

Dru gave Spike a reproving look, as though he was the one being an idiot right now. Standing up, she placed her hands over Ripper’s on the baby. “You know Jenny’s going to be fine,” she said very gently. “So do I, as a matter of fact. But I think she’d rather like you to be there when the baby comes—and I think you need to be a little calmer if she’s going to let you in the room again.”

Ripper looked to Spike, eyes wide and vulnerable.

It was a simple gesture, but it struck Spike: he was Ripper’s best friend. This was his moment to shine. Before the soul, he might have deliberately fucked it up, just because he thought it might be funny. Now—

“You love her a lot, yeah?” said Spike, in that gentle, careful voice he used on Dru’s off days. “It’s perfectly fine to be scared, long as you don’t scare her. Be scared all you want when the kid’s here and she’s resting. We can go out for drinks and you can cry some manly tears or something, just—not while she’s going through something like that. She needs you.”

Ripper’s face had changed, very slightly; it was clear Spike’s words had resonated with him. After a few more moments of consideration, he nodded, then left, the baby still in his arms.

“That wasn’t abysmal,” said Dru, giving Spike a small, sidelong smile. “I’ve seen you do worse.”

“Thanks ever so,” said Spike dryly, kissing her temple.

 ~~

It was nearing morning, so Spike and Dru had to reluctantly slip out of the hospital before the sun rose and they were burned to a crisp. Spike got the text from Ripper about an hour after they’d reached their basement-level apartment:

 thx mate. helped a lot. jenny and baby doing great.

 Just as Spike was typing a reply, the second message came from Ripper:

 we named him william.

 Any manly tears that were shed at the receiving of that message were strictly Spike’s business.

[partnersatfazbear]

Midnight Motorist - An Essay

I promised this awhile ago, but my thoughts on Midnight Motorist... This mini-game has literally kept me awake for hours on two separate occasions trying to figure it out, lol! So, reading the Updated Freddy Files *suggests, not confirms* that Toy Chica: The High School Years may be how William lured each child. I made notes on this, of course.

Although I listed who was used as a stand in for each, it has no bearing on the actual child killed.

The first, represented by Foxy, is already dead. I assumed this was a stand in for Norman/CC.

Second, represented by Freddy, was lured away with promises to help with homework.

Third, represented by Wolf. Run over their dog. We all know this is referring to Susie/Chica.

Fourth, represented by Toy Bonnie. It was suggested that their house be set on fire and then Chica uses her body to put out the flames. Best I could settle for this one was perhaps pulling a fire alarm at the restaraunt, or something similar.

Fifth, Funtime Foxy. Live hostages. Presumably luring a child away with promises that their friend / missing friend is in the back room.

Sixth, the Puppet. This one is the most interesting and why I'm including it here. Chica says "I'll come over to their house later, maybe break through a window, or set the house on fire and smoke them out [IIRC, I am paraphrasing a little]" The window, in my honest opinion, has to refer to Midnight Motorist. Scott has made a point of adding things in a following game to clarify the game before (starting at least since Sister Location). With the other one referencing Susie and Fruity Maze, I think this theory holds up, although it doesn't really help solve Midnight Motorist I think it's very important to note. (William has as much of an obsession with fire as Henry, huh?)

Lastly, there is Pigpatch. It's implied William would have knocked out a child and told them he rescued them after being "kidnapped". I really like this one.

The number of victims adds up to the number of children: BV, Freddy, Foxy, Bonnie, Chica, Golden Freddy, and Puppet.

Now that that's out of the way, I feel this heavily implies the footprints outside the window in MM are William's. The feet match the Glitchtrap suit, which most of us assume is a prototype for Spring Bonnie. Not only that, but obviously the springlock suits wouldn't work in the rain. Second, if you take some logic to it and see Charlotte as the first victim (no suit, no hiding the body, developing MO) then this killing would be the start of his MO--kind of an "in-between" point where he's evolving. Now, as to who the people in the house are...

In my fic, I kept the general idea that it was William as mustard man (thank you MatPat, this is my fav name for our mysterious fellow). Mostly because despite the evidence listed there is still a ton of evidence supporting it:

Later That Night - this is the name of the game file for MM.

Rain - Due to the in-game rain and this title its heavily implied to be just after Charlotte's death.

Grey Text - Michael is the only one to have the grey text and has similarities to Chair Person. (Note: I think Matpat did point out the color is slightly different, but it's still grey.)

Purple Car - William is the only one seen with a Purple Car back in one of the mini-games (FNAF 2, IIRC). To further support this, the car is also seen as an easter egg in the Dreadbear DLC of Help Wanted (with purple headlights). This is probably the most damning evidence that Mustard Man is William, in my opinion... but then how do the footprints make sense?

In my fic, I explained it away as footprints from the evening before (it was the best I could muster at the time) but this is super weak :V So this kind of brings us to alternative theories. If it is William, the supporting evidence is... good evidence of that. So, the other options are:

A Child Victim's Family - This is my second favorite theory because I think it could possibly work for, say, TOYSNHK [The One You Should Not Have Killed, hereby pronounced Toy-Shnuck] (who I made Cassidy). The problem with this is the child's gender is referred to as male. And there's a huge debate on Cassidy being female in game lore and TOYSNHK/GF being male. It IS a gender neutral name and wouldn't be the first time Scott changed a gender (see: Puppet), BUT it's pretty weak since all the info we have on TOYSNHK is recent. It could be another child that isn't Susie, though, but why show some random child as opposed to an important one? PizzaSim's games all revolve around specifics like Puppet (the first to die overall) and Susie (the first to die of the main five).

Henry is Mustard Man - This is the theory my wife likes. I can sort of see it and I even considered it at one point, but there isn't much evidence to go on. Why is the car purple is the biggest wrench for me. I also have problems with Mustard Man's attitude ("This is MY house", "He'll be sorry") Even if Henry was torn up about Charlotte, I can't see him treating his kids this way. This would also heavily imply the missing window kid to be Sammy, which hasn't been referenced in the game lore at all. He was barely mentioned in the novel trilogy, even. This also makes Gray Text either Aunt Jen or Henry's wife. There's just not enough to support this, in my opinion.

UPDATE 5/28/21 - Please see this post analyzing Fazbear Fright’s story “What We Found” for a more detailed look at what I’m about to explain that supports the Henry theory: Also from the books, CC / Norman is now referred to as Evan.

For this to work, we must assume Henry is an alcoholic after Charlotte’s death. I think the “later that night” evidence becomes somewhat irrelevant, because if this was the night of Charlotte’s death it wouldn’t really make sense. Part of me wondered if it took place after FNAF 2′s Springtrap cutscene, but the footprints don’t match. It has to be Spring Bonnie or Glitchtrap. Also, Evan and Elizabeth have also died by this point because neither are seen in the mini-game in this theory. You also must assume, based on the story evidence, that Henry married / stayed with Mrs. Afton after William either “died” or they divorced--they had to have been together for an x amount of time as for Mrs. Afton to be living with Henry but also the fact that Mrs. Afton kept Michael and the purple car. Henry using William’s car wouldn’t be unheard of if Mrs. Afton kept the car and the house, I just don’t feel Henry would use it unless he had been using the vehicle awhile. This also explains the Bonnie-esque footprints outside since William would want to come get / visit his kid he’s [most likely] no longer allowed to see. He may even be taking Michael back to the FNAF 4 house (implying that the house we see in MM is Henry’s). Speaking of, if we assume William’s intentions are [likely] bad, he’s probably taking Michael back to experiment with the Funtime-Nightmares, if you believe this theory. I think this theory is probably true considering the random grave (which, in this context has no answer except a Twisted animatronic aka a Nightmare) AND because the blueprints in Sister Location SHOW the Nightmares on the display during Funtime Freddy’s repair, implying they are real and not imagined. This is also assumed to be punishment for Michael killing Evan. I think Michael goes WITH William because of his tumultuous relationship with a now mentally ill and drunkard Henry. Henry probably knows that William killed Charlotte and a common theme in some works is a parent seeing their child (or a murderer) in a child aka Michael reminds Henry of William, so he neglects him (which in itself wouldn’t be out of place for Henry, since he already wasn’t a very attentive parent).

The main issue with this theory is that it sort of assumes that CC was Michael and not Evan. I don’t think that’s the case, though.

While we're on this version, I also want to discuss evidence for the MM driver being drunk. Not only are you driving on the opposite side of traffic, the Files book explicitly states "crashing" into the secret road for the mini-game. Not that Henry couldn't be drunk, especially if he just found Charlotte dead, but... for me personally it seems a stretch. And I already mentioned the car.

William's Father - This is an interesting idea, but the foot prints kind of rule it out. At least there's an explanation for the car, though, right? Still, it doesn't explain the foot prints unless you assume maybe his father was more alike Afton than we thought. But then why bother showing us background on our killer so late with no pay off? I easily dismiss this theory.

A new theory, at least one I haven't seen posed yet:

Vanny - That's right. Vanny. What if she survived/lived? Some leaks even suggest she may be related to the Aftons. Mustard Man's color is similar to Princess Quest's heroine. It explains the footprints, but doesn't explain the car. This would make for a nice foreshadowing of Vanny, IMO, but it’s weak at best.

You know when Matpat discusses "that one puzzle peice that we're missing"? That's this entire mess of a mini-game. Don't get me wrong, the music is bawlin and it's fun to talk about, otherwise I wouldn't write about it, but it is undoubtedly FRUSTRATING.

What are your opinions?

I also wanted to point out some other interesting things from the Files book I haven't seen discussed: There is confirmation of two sets of gold suits. Not only is there the FNAF 2 phone call, but the text specifies between Spring Bonnie/Springtrap and Fredbear/Golden Freddy. IE: FNAF 4 suit is Springtrap but the one from Stage 01 is Spring Bonnie. This could be oversight, but... I don't think it is. I'm sure most of the fandom does ASSUME this anyway, but I felt it was worth noting. (In my fic, they are the same suit, but the second sets are upgraded after the original failures).

The poster behind Scraptrap. Nothing really interesting here, but there is an image of a building with two gargoyle (lion?) statues behind him. Presumably this would be a police station or Fazbear Fright. I just thought it was cool since I never noticed this in the image. My initial thought was this might be a reference to the hospital in Man in 1280, but that’s a stretch.

Jr's. This is the random building in Midnight Motorist in which Green Man says "gtfo" to our Mustard Man. I should mention I feel that is good evidence to it being William or Henry, depending what the building is. We can 100% say it is NOT a bar (in my fic, that's what I used, even though it doesn't make sense. I don't see a drunk person driving to a second bar so close to their home when they could have gone there initially, BUT then I am a home-drinker when I do drink, so I don't know the night life). The Files refer to it as simply "a restaraunt". Whether this IS a FNAF location (also referred to as restaraunts) or just some random eatery, it's something to contemplate. I am in the camp that it isn't FNAF 2, at least.

I have some other things from Fazbear Frights' Blackbird I wanna discuss, too, but I'll wait until the book is out to help you all avoid spoilers.

Now, this is all just my thoughts on it. Please don't take anything too seriously (as Scott says don't rack your brain on this, it's not worth it). I just think these are some points that haven't been discussed before.

Also, if you wanna read my theory on why Scraptrap is partly the Golden Freddy suit, I have that theory here.

Thanks for coming to my ted talk? <-- is that a dated reference? Probably.

[angeltriestoblog]

I watched a couple of movies! (Part 2)

Back again with the second bunch of my latest quarantine companions! My last post wasn't that long ago, but I’ve already gone through an additional 21 and thanks to the extension of the lockdown and the abrupt cancellation of the rest of my sophomore year in college, I predict that this number will only increase exponentially. I obviously have to start looking for a sustainable way of reviewing the media I consume (probably will try dumping mini-reviews on Letterboxd instead), but until then, here is today’s little catalog: divided into four neat categories so there’s a little bit of everything for everyone.

Dead Poets Society (1989, dir. Peter Weir) ★★★★½

John Keating is the teacher we secretly deserved yet never had, which is probably what's behind the fervent loyalty audiences have had for this movie since its release around three decades ago. His methods of teaching are admittedly unorthodox, but they effectively instill in fictional students and real-life audiences the core message: to seize the day and be extraordinary. I definitely would have appreciated more of Williams, though: I noticed later on that he was used mostly as a plot device, as the focus started to shift to the impact his words had on the group of young boys under his tutelage. But, thankfully they are endearing and lovable in their own little ways (special mention goes to ambitious Neil, played by Robert Sean Leonard; and Ethan Hawke as timid Todd), which is why the last half-hour remains one of the heaviest in recent memory.

Mrs. Doubtfire (1993, dir. Chris Columbus) ★★★★

When Daniel Hillard’s (Robin Williams) wife splits up with him and takes their kids, he disguises himself as an English nanny called Mrs. Doubtfire and applies as their housekeeper to be with them. Not exactly the most realistic and practical approach to an issue as serious as divorce, but it succeeds by banking on heartfelt humor to strike a chord in products of broken families. When you take his several antics, punchlines, and vocal impersonations aside, he is simply a father willing to do anything for his children. Williams was destined to be the lead for this: his comedic timing, sheer versatility, and natural ability to bring joy remain unparalleled. Such a shame I didn't get to grow up with this guy, but maybe this saved me a lot of heartbreak.

Catch Me If You Can (2002, dir. Steven Spielberg) ★★★★★

A con man successfully cashes in millions of dollars worth of checks as a Pan Am pilot, doctor, and lawyer, whilst evading the FBI agent who’s hot on his heels. And this is all before he turns 19 years old--what a total underachiever. The best part? It’s a true story. I find it hard to believe that this clever cat-and-mouse story lasted more than two hours: it's easy to lose track of time thanks to its dynamic and snappy screenplay, coupled with the chemistry of its brilliant lead actors (no less than Leonardo DiCaprio and Tom Hanks). But beneath the complex and technical aspects of his scams that have high entertainment and educational value lie touching moments that may be admittedly easy to miss. At the end of the day, these escapades were nothing but some twisted coping mechanism of Frank Abagnale, Jr.’s to deal with the divorce of his parents. *blows nose into handkerchief* Wow, I seriously didn't think something could be so fast and fun, yet so depressing either!

Good Will Hunting (1997, dir. Gus Van Sant) ★★★★★

Academy Award-winning writers Matt Damon and Ben Affleck may look like they share a solitary brain cell in total (a prime example would be this footage of their acceptance speech), but it was the power that radiated from that which brought us this instant favorite of mine. This engrossing story revolves around a janitor at MIT, with a genius-level IQ but a troubled and traumatic past. A scuffle with a police officer leads him to Sean, his therapist (and platonic soulmate) who breaks down his dangerous defense mechanisms and self-destructive patterns, helps him tackle his inner demons, and ultimately transforms his life. There is a lot to adore about this film that’s equal parts wit and heart, but my favorite has to be the razor-sharp and realistic dialogue between Damon and Williams. Smoothly transitioning from topic to topic—genuine friendship, abusive relationships, and everything in between—it gives us the opportunity to monitor Will’s growth while carefully examining these aspects of our own lives. With every word said, the audience is reminded once again of any person's innate capacity to change for the better as long as someone else believes in them.

Lost in Translation (2003, dir. Sofia Coppola) ★★★

Film Twitter and the Letterboxd community both made this out to be an outstanding piece of modern cinema, so I went in with very high expectations only to be sorely disappointed and unable to understand the hype behind it. This revolves around two lonely people who find solace in each other and the unfamiliar and unpredictable territory they're in, a storyline brimming with potential that just fell flat to me. I normally appreciate the beauty in silent and ambient scenes, but the ones that made up a huge bulk of this feature didn’t have substance—it was similar to watching mashed-up clips from some random travel vlog. I did find the choice of location fitting though, I am now a hundred percent convinced I should travel to Japan once this pandemic is over. And Scarlett Johansson is incredibly talented for her age: her ability to channel and characterize emotions that a 17-year-old may not even be able to comprehend is above par, which is the main reason why this gets a passing rating from me.

Forrest Gump (1994, dir. Robert Zemeckis) ★★★★★

What I would give to run into a chocolate-eating, Nike Cortez-wearing Forrest Gump at a bus stop, and hear him tell me these fantastic stories himself! This heartwarming tale shows the manner in which he weaved himself into significant historical narratives (literally and figuratively, thanks to the power of deepfake) and injects timeless lessons along the way. Tom Hanks is undoubtedly brilliant as the titular role, and as we see the world according to this feeble-minded and well-meaning man, we come to admire his values, appreciate his efforts, and forgive his occasional shortcomings. In this fast-paced and overly complicated world that we struggle to navigate, this can serve as a necessary breather, a reminder of the simple joys that the world has to offer.

Celeste and Jesse Forever (2012, dir. Lee Toland Krieger) ★★★★

I think this is the first time I’ve witnessed a breakup end rather amicably on the big screen: there's no screamfest that concludes with a cold slap to the face and a dramatic walkout, or a courtroom confrontation that unearths past transgressions, et cetera. Instead, the leads are forced to confront the fact that the friendship they have forged years before that eventually blossomed into something more will never be the same again. Even if they want to so, so bad. I guess that’s why this is so heartbreaking, and thus the perfect companion for any person in the process of finding themselves after the demise of a long-term relationship. Celeste (Rashida Jones) meanders through the process with an extreme lack of finesse—which is the most realistic way to do so—that heavily accentuates her several fatal flaws. But, she manages to finish strong, emerging as a self-reflective and action-driven version of who she was in the beginning. I definitely wanted additional exposure for Jesse (Andy Samberg), though, who was not only surprisingly tender and sensitive in contrast to the Jake Peralta we know and love (and want to pick on), but also an unexpected perfect onscreen match for Jones.

A Star is Born (2018, dir. Bradley Cooper) ★★★★

The third remake of the 1937 movie starring Janet Gaynor and Fredric March, this edition of A Star is Born strays far from the paths traversed by its predecessors (and this I am aware of, from that film analysis video binge I did recently). It’s the first to give Jackson Maine (Bradley Cooper), the has-been with a raging alcohol and drug problem, extensive back story that draws audiences closer to him. But, this character arc comes at the expense of Ally's, the talented singer that he propels to fame, played by Lady Gaga. It was a shame she wasn’t fleshed out as much as she should have been, given that Gaga was a natural, her vulnerability a far cry from her outrageous onstage persona. But, then again, expectations must be kept realistic: it would’ve been impossible to cram that into the specified duration. Nevertheless, I thoroughly appreciated it: though rehashed several times, a romance done this way keeps its key components while catering to the preferences of this generation. The soundtrack is outstanding, and the climax—though somewhat expected—finds new ways to reduce us to a puddle of tears, particularly as the last song number start to roll.

Fall in Love At First Kiss (2019, dir. Frankie Chen) ★★½

Our Times has been a favorite of mine for years, so I couldn't believe that I missed this work from the same director which starred the same male lead during its initial release. Turns out it didn’t make much of a difference whether I watched it or not. The storyline was silly, but forgivably so: in a school where students are segregated based on intelligence, a stupid girl is smitten by the smartest boy in school and gets rejected as soon as she confesses. Consequently, hell breaks loose after they are forced to live together for reasons you have to see to believe. I remember enjoying the first half, squirming in my seat because of Jiang Zhishu (Darren Wang) every chance I'd get. I can’t pinpoint where exactly it started going wrong, but I remember realizing that it is possible for something to drag along, yet also move so fast: to bore me with excessive detail in a single scene, then cut to the next so fast it loses a sense of continuity. In addition to that, the female lead (Jelly Lin) was so unbearable in terms of her acting style and character development (or lack thereof). She seemed to think that constantly complaining in her shrill voice and thrashing her limbs was a fitting substitute for dialogue, thus making it difficult to want her to get her happily ever after. Also, I’ve had pretty intense crushes in the past few years but what she has for Zhishu is bordering more on an unhealthy obsession—I have trouble believing he reacted so calmly to the shrine that she built for him (which included life-size pillows with his face on it).

The Object of My Affection (1998, dir. Nicolas Hytner) ★★½

I was very confused as to why I had never heard of a chick flick that starred two of my favorite actors from the 90s, but now I understand why it didn't take off. (Phoebe would probably share my sentiments. What's her best friend doing with her husband anyway? And why is he attracted to men?) Nina (Jennifer Aniston) is hopelessly in love with her gay best friend George (Paul Rudd), so much so that she decides she wants to raise her unborn child with him instead of with her overbearing and borderline manipulative boyfriend (John Pankow). Though it wasn't a complete disaster given that she didn't successfully convert him, Nina was far too demanding, constantly overstepping her boundaries, and feeding her delusions. Maybe it could afford a modern retelling since I know our generation could tackle the concepts of platonic soulmates and LGBTQ+ relationships in a way that is simultaneously vibrant and sensitive.

How to Lose A Guy in 10 Days (2003, dir. Donald Petrie) ★★★★★

Once I had tried my luck in a number of different genres, I decided to reward myself with a return to the cheesy, corny, and conventional chick flicks I am familiar with—and I’m glad that I picked this one! Andie Anderson (Kate Hudson) is a magazine columnist with her biggest scoop yet: an article on how to lose a guy in 10 days. To test this idea out, she tries it out on Ben Barry (Matthew McConaughey), who’s on a mission to make a girl fall for him within that duration as well. Their conflicting agendas lead to disastrously hilarious results as they realize that they’re both *gasp* catching feelings for each other! I enjoyed this very much despite the predictability, although I’m honestly unable to judge it based on any criteria other than what I felt which was pure and utter, slamming-the-table, throwing-my-stuffed-toy-across-the-room “kilig”.

Just My Luck (2006, dir. Donald Petrie) ★½

I didn’t expect this to be on the forgettable side of the romcom spectrum, when it had Chris Pine as the leading man and Brit-pop band McFly lending their music to most of the scenes (the sole redeeming factor I found). But, I guess it’s Lindsay Lohan’s character and her surprising lack of chemistry with the equally attractive and talented person opposite her that killed it for me. Here, she plays Ashley, the luckiest girl in the world who gets everything her way and is thus as snobbish and stuck-up as you’d expect her to be. A chance encounter brings her to Jake, who is the human equivalent of a black cat standing in front of a broken mirror, and swaps their fate. She is then left to deal with poorly contrived misfortunes with effects that are bordering on slapstick comedy: she gets doused in mud, mildly electrocuted, and soaked in bubbles shortly after blowing up a washing machine and I get that they’re probably supposed to be funny, but all I’m seeing is a live-action version of the Looney Tunes show.

Eighth Grade (2018, dir. Bo Burnham) ★★★★★

Entering our awkward preteen years has always come with a certain and specific kind of mortification, but I reckon it’s become increasingly difficult in the age of the Internet. It’s become easier to find fault in oneself for the pettiest of reasons: why isn’t my crush accepting my friend request? Why do I look like a monster in my #wokeuplikethis selfies? Why is no one viewing my YouTube videos even if I work hard on them? Eighth Grade encapsulates this difficult period in the lives of Gen Z kids with the use of experiences and references which are so specific to this generation: I may have gotten whiplash more times than I would care to admit. Elsie Fisher shines in her painfully relatable performance as Kayla: you can sense her desperation for social acceptance. She just wants to be worth noticing and remembering, is that so bad! Although his role is often overshadowed, I also felt for her dad (Josh Hamilton), who tries to hide the struggle of looking out for a daughter who's growing in ways he simply can't understand.

Boyhood (2014, dir. Richard Linklater) ★★★

This ambitious effort by the director of my favorite film trilogy observes the growth and development of a typical American boy named Mason. No fancy plot devices or major conflicts are in sight, but by using the keeping the cast members fixed during the 12 years it took to put this project together instead of swapping them out for older counterparts, audiences are expected to form an emotional connection with them because they were given an intimate and prolonged look into their lives. Unfortunately, this wasn’t the case for me. Yes, I did watch him grow up before my eyes, but I barely know who he is. These mundane snippets of his life haphazardly stitched together, without any indication of how much time has elapsed since the previous scene, made it hard to keep up with the pace and look at the viewing experience as anything but a chore. I honestly am puzzled as to why I endured 165 minutes (I’m kidding, it was for Ethan Hawke) worth of footage, and sadly it wasn’t even worth it.

Brooklyn (2015, dir. John Crowley) ★★★★

This drama about the migration of an Irish girl to New York to seek better opportunities delves into the concept of what home truly is, as Eilis is left to choose between two men from two different countries. Divided into three segments revolving around pivotal events in the protagonist’s life, it sensitively tackles the experiences and issues familiar to any immigrant, remains true to the period it is set in, and engaging to audience members of all ages. Most in the historical genre are incapable of doing all three, so that's definitely no mean feat! And I’m not biased because Saoirse Ronan plays the starring role, although her compelling performance renders it impossible for anyone who claims to have a beating heart to finish this without puffy eyes and a heavy chest.

Happy Old Year (2019, dir. Nawapol Thamrongrattanarit) ★★★★

I thought Chutimon Chuengcharoensukying couldn’t top her role in Bad Genius, but she just had to come along and star in this personal take on new beginnings. Here, she plays Jean, a girl in the process of decluttering her house so she can transform it into an office space. While sifting through her possessions, she finds certain things belonging to people from her past, that remind her of broken relationships and question her philosophies on forgiveness and letting go. Her performance may be understated compared to the cunning and reckless Lynn she has become popular for, but I see this mastery of restraint as indication of her growth as an actress. The film is relatively simple in its execution, staying true to its central theme of minimalism. By stripping the structure down to the bare essentials of actor and dialogue, the audience can focus on the poignancy ingrained in the most mundane part of our everyday routines.

The Edge of Seventeen (2016, dir. Kelly Fremon Craig) ★★★★

It's actually true that a coming-of-age movie has been written based on every definitive moment a teenage girl experiences, they weren’t lying. The Edge of Seventeen could serve as part of Eighth Grade's cinematic universe, but instead we’re dealing with another reflection of who we were (or maybe still are). Nadine (Hailee Steinfeld) is a teen constantly teetering between arrogant self-assurance and sheer hopelessness. When she loses her best friend to her worst nemesis, she suddenly has to learn to navigate the ups and downs of adolescence and deal with her mental illness on her own. Besides focusing on the several firsts that we often encounter during this stage in our lives, the film accurately portrays our angsty and self-deprecating nature without resorting to mockery, therefore calling us out on this reflex we have of beating ourselves up and giving those around us permission to do so during such a critical part of our lives. I swore I was actually going to try not to cry here, but I guess Nadine's tearful monologue left me with no choice. (I'll leave it below so you can suffer with me.)

You know, ever since we were little, I would get this feeling like, like I’m floating outside of my body, looking down at myself… and I hate what I see: how I’m acting, the way I sound, and I don’t know how to change it. And I’m so scared that the feeling is never gonna go away.

The Kingmaker (2019, dir. Lauren Greenfield) ★★★★

This documentary is a fitting introduction for anyone who isn't familiar with the ill-gotten wealth and abuses the Marcoses have lying underneath their glossy veneer of opulence as well as the consequences of their actions that we suffer from to this day. Greenfield’s juxtaposition of this family’s fabricated stories and the testimonies of victims and first-hand witnesses was a smart move, as we observe the lengths they often go to, to revise the course of history. By spotting the parallels in their narrative and that of Rodrigo Duterte, the next strongman the voting population would unfortunately elect as their leader, we are also given a glimpse into the selective amnesia of the Filipino people that keeps these people in power. The danger lies in the fact that being an outsider herself, Greenfield leaves plenty of room for interpretation: there is no clear-cut statement of what was right and wrong among the several interweaving statements we heard. I was able to determine which was which is due to the fact that I already had prior knowledge, but where does that leave those who don't?

By the way, if you’re wondering why this has been grouped under this category, it’s because I remembered from Grade 6 science class that anger is one way to trigger adrenaline in the body.

Inception (2010, dir. Christopher Nolan) ★★★★★

Perfect always felt like a lazy way to describe what is supposed to be of superior quality. If you want to sing praises about anything that good, you're gonna have to do a better job than that to convince anyone that it's worth their time: was it inventive and bold or cerebral or emotional? Well, I'm afraid I have to bend this rule for Inception for the sake of brevity, because if I leave myself to ramble on about everything this did right, I would surely run out of adjectives. This sci-fi-heist-psychological thriller is in a league of its own, with its intricate plot and layered method of storytelling further amplified by stellar cast performances, masterful editing and special effects, and a thundering musical score that keeps audiences on edge for the entirety of its run. These elements come together to create a production that resonates and lingers with viewers long after the credits have rolled, partly thanks to that highly disputed final scene. (If my opinion is worth anything here, I believed that it stopped. Iykyk.)

The Lobster (2015, dir. Yorgos Lanthimos) ★★★★½

In this dystopian society, single people are required to check into a hotel in the hopes of finding a suitable partner within 45 days. If they fail to do so, they are sentenced to live the rest of their lives as an animal of their choice. It’s an absurd plot, far removed from reality, executed in a bleak and dry fashion. Yet, it manages to mirror and even satirize the world of modern relationships rather profoundly, particularly the societal pressure to couple up and find our ideal match instantly, or face harsh judgment. I doubt I've watched anything this dark in my life, but I found the unpredictable twists and turns, the deadpan humor, the sheer strangeness of it all very amusing and recommend it to anybody who wants to learn a thing or two about how blind love can be.

Ocean’s Eleven (2001, dir. Steven Soderbergh) ★★★★

I admit I was as pissed as Rusty Ryan (Brad Pitt) following his discovery that the reason why Danny Ocean (George Clooney) was keen on carrying out an elaborate heist of the three biggest casinos in Las Vegas was to win his wife (Julia Roberts) back. But, along the way, I was reeled in by the airtight pacing of the multiple scams that were a part of the scheme and the natural banter that takes place among the members of the ensemble. Also, it’s quite impossible to be annoyed at something that starred so many big names during the peak of their careers. (I have a soft spot for Matt Damon, thanks a lot Good Will Hunting.) Although I already knew what was going to happen, it was a joyride to see everything unfold. Based on the ending (and the copies of Ocean’s Twelve and Thirteen that my dad owned as a kid), I can tell that it’s far from over and I’m surely looking forward to what happens next.

So, that’s it for today’s round-up! Hope something caught your interest: I’d be happy to send 123m*vies links for any of those that aren’t available on Netflix. Feel free to hit me up too: I'm honestly up for thought-provoking discussions and straight-up keyboard smashing. Wishing you love and light always, and don’t forget to wash your hands, check your privilege and pray for our frontliners!

[729renegades]

UP CLOSE & PERSONAL – JULIE WILLIAMS

Hello, today I’m with Julie Williams whose part of the Maple Mastermind Group and we’re going to be doing the Up Close & Personal interview for the Renegade Magazine so we’re going to get to know a little bit more about Julie. Who is Julie?

Julie Williams: I think at the moment a very busy working Mum. I’ve just left a corporate life to follow my own dreams and start my own business which has been quite nice.

Andy Stace: It’s good to see and nice to watch your progress. So, what do you do exactly Julie?

JW: In my working career I have a business that I’ve been running for 12 years where I sell children’s books, which has always been my passion. Accountancy has been my profession; however, I’d say that I’m more of a business consultant and trouble shooter than a general accountant in that almost all of my career has been about solving problems, getting people out of difficulties and all sorts of different kinds of things actually. So, I’ve had lots of past experience and I think what I do is very diversified and really enjoyable.

AS: Good stuff! So, where are you from Julie?

JW: I’m from the Rhondda Valleys originally.  I moved to Cardiff when I was 21 years old, quite some time ago now. I then moved to Miskin, which is a little rural village in between Cardiff and my home town and actually the location is brilliant as it’s 2 minutes off the M4. I like living there, it’s great place to live.

AS: So, do you have a partner or a husband?

JW: I have a partner. I was divorced about 7 years ago. A very amicable divorce, we get on really well and we’re both very good parents, which is great. We don’t have any issues. There were no solicitors involved so it was quite simple. I have a new partner of four and a half years and his name is Lee. He doesn’t tend to understand the business side of things because he’s an engineer and a motor technician but he’s very supportive.

AS:  I know it’s not polite to ask a lady her age but roughly how many years have you been floating around on this planet?

JW: I’m a year and a little bit off fifty.

AS: Really!  You don’t look it.

JW: Thank you.

AS: You look great. So, what inspired you to run your own business then?

JW: I think that for years I’ve been freelancing as an accountant and helping people out and then I was poached into the corporate banking world 2 years.  It was a great decision because it took me out of the position I was in at that time where I wasn’t particularly happy and felt undervalued.  In the corporate world, the banking industry wasn’t for me in the fact that I didn’t make the decisions and I couldn’t make a difference and help the companies I wanted to help. So, it was always a case of. . . let’s go back and do something that you’re good at. My feeling was, that for 45 years I’d worked for somebody else, why not do it for yourself. I’d always enjoyed my other business and that’s worked quite well alongside employment, so I just thought I’d give it a go and do it for myself. And so far, so good.

AS: So, during those 2 years, what was the biggest thing you learnt? Even though you didn’t enjoy the job, what did you take away?

JW: The biggest thing I learnt. . . I learnt a lot of new skills. Obviously, it was a brand-new career, accountancy and banking is completely different.  People think they’re related but they’re not.  Bankers are not taught to do what an accountant does, and banking is quite restricted. So what I found was, I looked after a portfolio of about 150 plus customers and I learnt that the customers are absolutely amazing and as an accountant and a business consultant, you can help them but in relation to a bank, because it’s a huge, huge monster you’re governed by facts and figures, you don’t see the whole picture of the actual customer. . . . How long they’ve been in business, how much money they have in the bank now, what sectors, their trends.  I’m not saying that these figures and facts aren’t important but sometimes you have to see that business is a rollercoaster, so as an accountant and a business consultant I understand that but as banker, they don’t understand that.  And I felt that I learnt an awful lot about the industry and the fact that it’s a very, very tough industry.  It’s very, very competitive in relation to the banking as well but it wasn’t for me. I liked the job but after almost a 10-hour day, I never felt an achievement. I never felt, oh that’s great, it was almost the feeling of, it’s great to get it off your desk. Where it’s completely different when you actually help somebody, whether they have a cashflow issue, or whether they’re looking for growth or whether they’re looking to sell their business, you have a completely different gratification almost of doing that than you do from a bank.

AS: Sounds very clinical and very impersonal.

JW: It is, very, very impersonal.

AS: Based on numbers and ratios, so it doesn’t actually take the personality of the business owner into account.

JW: No, it doesn’t at all, and this is the issue, as I said, with a 150 plus customers in my portfolio, that was without the people I was covering, there are some really, really good people out there who care about their business. You just have to understand that it’s a rollercoaster.  So, as an accountant and coming from industry, I was almost over servicing these people because it certainly wasn’t in the rule of what the bank wanted, they really only want you to tick boxes almost.  You need to see 6 maybe 8 clients a week, well if you’re going to spend time with clients and understand their problems, that’s sometimes impossible.

AS: So, taking what you’ve learned from the bank, how’s that motivated you on a day to day basis with your new business?

JW: It’s motivated me hugely into helping businesses more.  I’ve always known, that businesses struggle, particularly business owners. Whether they’ve come into the business through hierarchy or whether they’ve come in through entrepreneurship, what they find is, that very often they’re so wrapped up with the operations of the business that they forget about the business side, looking after the HMRC and accounting and all different things like that. They don’t take them into consideration, and I’ve found that I’ve seen it more, even though I’ve always been exposed to it, because this is what I’ve always done, going and looking after so many more customers within a banking field I’ve seen that it’s almost the norm. I’d say that 90% of customers are brilliant at the operations side but the actual running of the business, they almost need a little business avatar to help them so that they can concentrate of day to day activities.

AS: That’s great, but what does success mean to you? What’s your vision for your business?

JW: My vision has been to make a difference, but personally I’d like fulfilment. Financial freedom is on the backbone of it but it’s fulfilment for me.  In the fact that if I’ve actually helped companies grow and helped people sell their businesses for a lot more money than they would have done or helped people to get over those difficult times in relation to turn around. I discussed with you earlier about a business that is really struggling at the moment and I’m literally on the grasp of trying to salvage it. To me, if I do salvage that business, that’s almost like, “come on let’s go out and have a bottle of Verve”, just to celebrate, because I’ve helped that business get through those really difficult times, so the more of them I can do, it’s almost like the vision of bringing people on to help them do the same as me. I want lots of mini me’s to be able to help and make a difference.

  You can listen to the rest of this interview by logging into your travectio account and going to the Resources/Audio tab.

  from Blog | 729renegades https://ift.tt/2PYG0kB